Reliability of a computer and Internet survey (Computer User Profile) used by adults with and without traumatic brain injury (TBI)

References

• Hauber RP, Vesmarovich S, Dufour L. The use of computers and the Internet as a source of health information for people with disabilities. Rehabilitation Nursing 2002;27:142–145
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Magnan SS, editor. Mediating discourse online. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2008
   Google Scholar
• Vaccaro M, Hart T, Whyte J, Buchhofer R. Internet use and interest among individuals with traumatic brain injury: a consumer survey. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 2007;2:85–95
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Todis B, Sohlberg M, Fickas S, Hood D. Making electronic email accessible: perspectives of people with acquired cognitive impairments, caregivers and professionals. Brain Injury 2005;19:389–401
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsaousides T, Matsuzawa Y, Lebowitz M. Familiarity and prevalence of Facebook use for social networking among individuals with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 2011;25:1155–1162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellawell DJ, Taylor R, Pentland B. Cognitive and psychosocial outcome following moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 1999;13:489–504
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald S, Johnson CJ. Assessment of subtle cognitive-communication deficits following acquired brain injury: a normative study of the Functional Assessment of Verbal Reasoning and Executive Strategies (FAVRES). Brain Injury 2005;19:895–902
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miotto E, Cinalli F, Serrao V, Benute G, Lucia M, Scaff M. Cognitive deficits in patients with mild to moderate traumatic brain injury. Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria 2010;68:862–868
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skandsen T, Finnanger T, Andersson S, Lydersen S, Brunner J, Vik A. Cognitive impairment 3 months after moderate and severe traumatic brain injury: a prospective follow-up study. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2010;91:1904–1913
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaffee, R. (1998). New York: Statistics and Social Sciences group. Enhancement of Reliability Analysis: Applications of the Intraclass Correlation with SPSS v 8. [Website]. Available online at http://www.nyu.edu/acf/socsci/Docs/intracls.html, accessed 20 November 2009
   Google Scholar
• Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1987;40:171–178
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nunnally J. The assessment of reliability psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1967. p 248–292
   Google Scholar
• Landis J, Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walter S, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Statistics in Medicine 1998;17:101–110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marx RG, Menezes A, Horovitz L, Jones EC, Warren RF. A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2003;56:730–750
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDowell I, Newell C. Assessing reliability measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, Inc.; 2006. p 37–42
   Google Scholar
• SPSS Inc. SPSS Version 14.0 for Windows (Version III). Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.; 2005
   Google Scholar
• Weir J. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 2005;19:231–234
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuck P. Assessing reproducibility for interval data in health-related quality of life questionnaires: which coefficient should be used? Quality of Life Research 2004;13:571–586
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherney LR, Shadden BB, Coelho CA. Analyzing discourse in communicatively impaired adults. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers; 1998
   Google Scholar
• Tu L, Togher L, Power E. The impact of communication partner and discourse task on a person with traumatic brain injury: The use of multiple perspectives. Brain Injury 2011;25:560–580
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VanLeer E, Turkstra L. The effect of elicitation task on discourse coherence and cohesion in adolescents with brain injury. Journal of Communication Disorders 1999;32:327–349
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris J, Mueller J, Jones M. Toward mobile phone design for all: Meeting the needs of stroke survivors. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 2010;17:353–361
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wanner A. Mediating discourse online. In: Magnan SS, editor. AILA Applied Linguistics Series 3. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2008. p 125–149
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. (2001). ICF: International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization
   Google Scholar